DETAILED ACTION
The following action is in response to application 18/886,297 filed on September 16, 2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 10 contains the trademark/trade name DURAFIDE PPS. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the material of the bushing and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 4, on lines 2-3, the limitation of “the fastener head” lacks antecedent basis. A similar issue occurs in claim 10.
The claims will be treated as best understood.
Claim Interpretations
A “trim part” has been interpreted as any part of a vehicle (applicant has referred to a floor board as a “trim part”).
“Molded into” has been interpreted as pliably/elastically inserted/formed into.
A “bracket” has been treated as any part of a vehicle (applicant has referred to what might be the top of a batter as a “bracket”).
A “heat source” has been interpreted as any possible heat source (could be a person, the atmosphere, etc.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by David (US 5651535). With regard to claim 1, David teaches a trim part for a vehicle comprising: a trim part 28 having a body, the body including an attachment bracket 22 to secure the trim part to the vehicle; a thermal bushing 26 is coupled with the attachment bracket for providing thermal insulation for the trim part, the bushing including a first disk portion 27, a second disk portion 29 and a cylindrical body 31 with two ends, the first and second disk are each positioned at one end of the cylinder (Fig. 2), a bore (filled in by sleeve 32) passes through the first disk portion, cylindrical body and second disk portion for receiving a fastener 38, and a wall defining the bore is sized to define an air gap between the fastener and the bushing (Fig. 2). With regard to claim 2, David teaches the part, wherein the thermal bushing 26 is a one piece construction. With regard to claim 3, David teaches the part, wherein the thermal bushing is made from non-ceramic material (Col. 2, line 66; bushing is elastomeric). With regard to claim 4, David teaches the part, wherein the material of the bushing enabling compression of the thermal bushing by a fastener head 39. With regard to claim 5, David teaches the part, wherein the thermal bushing 26 is molded into the trim attachment bracket (pliably inserted).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
552
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shin (US 20250079611; see annotated Figures 5 and 11 above for clarity). With regard to claim 1, Shin teaches a trim part for a vehicle comprising: a trim part having a body 55, the body including an attachment bracket 3 to secure the trim part to the vehicle; a thermal bushing 5 is coupled with the attachment bracket for providing thermal insulation for the trim part, the bushing including a first disk portion, a second disk portion and a cylindrical body with two ends, the first and second disk are each positioned at one end of the cylinder (Fig. 11), a bore passes through the first disk portion, cylindrical body and second disk portion (Fig. 5) for receiving a fastener 7, and a wall defining the bore is sized to define an air gap between the fastener and the bushing (Fig. 5). With regard to claims 2 and 8, Shin teaches the part, wherein the thermal bushing 5 is a one piece construction (Fig. 11). With regard to claims 3 and 9, Shin teaches the part, wherein the thermal bushing is made from non-ceramic material (paragraph 69; material of bushing can endure plastic transformation). With regard to claims 4 and 10, Shin teaches the part, wherein the material of the bushing enabling compression (compression is a force in a direction) of the thermal bushing by a fastener head 7. With regard to claims 5 and 11, Shin teaches the part, wherein the thermal bushing 5 is molded into the trim attachment bracket (Fig. 11). With regard to claim 7, Shin teaches a vehicle including an interior trim part 55 comprising: a vehicle cab @25 for receiving the trim part, a heat source 1 adjacent the cab; the trim part connected to the heat source, the trim part comprising: a body 55, the body including an attachment bracket 3 to secure the trim part to the vehicle; a thermal bushing 5 is coupled with the attachment bracket for providing thermal insulation for the trim part, the bushing including a first disk portion, a second disk portion and a cylindrical body, with two ends, the first and second disk are each positioned at one end of the cylinder (Fig. 11), a bore passes through the first disk portion, cylindrical body and second disk portion (Fig. 5) for receiving a fastener 7, and a wall defining the bore is sized to define an air gap between the fastener and the bushing (Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David ‘535. With regard to claim 6, David teaches the part, but lacks the specific teaching wherein the gap is about 0.25 mm to 0.5 mm between the fastener and the wall (i.e. thickness of the sleeve 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify David to employ a gap of about 0.25 mm to 0.5 mm between the fastener and the wall with reasonable expectation for success in order to attain a desired dimension, and also since such a modifcation would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin ‘611. With regard to claims 6 and 12, Shin teaches the part, but lacks the specific teaching wherein the gap is about 0.25 mm to 0.5 mm between the fastener and the wall. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Shin to employ a gap of about 0.25 mm to 0.5 mm between the fastener and the wall with reasonable expectation for success in order to attain a desired dimension, and also since such a modifcation would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Suggestions for Applicant
Applicant may want to include the limitation of specific structures that could overcome the cited Shin and David references as well as other cited art. Suggested limitations are as follows:
the trim part being a floorboard that is attached to the bracket.
The bracket is connected to a battery.
the diameter of the first disk and second disk being greater than the diameter of the cylindrical body (this was not an issue with the applied references, but would be an issue with similar art that use collars/sleeves in the same environment).
the fastener is inserted through the bushing from above the bracket (therefore, in the context of suggested limitations 1 and 3 above) the fastener must be inserted through the bushing first and then the floorboard can be attached to the bracket afterwards).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adams (US 3193237) has been cited to show a similar trim part comprising: a trim part 23, an attachment bracket 10, a thermal bushing 12, a bore (Fig. 1) and a fastener 25.
Grosse (US 20200009957) has been cited to show a similar trim part comprising: a cabin with an interior trim part 14/12, an attachment bracket 27, a thermal bushing 27, a bore (Fig. 2), a fastener 5, and a heat source 5.
Takahashi (US 11447184) has been cited to show a similar trim part comprising: a cabin with an interior trim part 50, an attachment bracket 20 a thermal bushing 30, a bore (Fig. 2), a fastener 31, and a heat source 40.
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Submission of your response by facsimile transmission is encouraged. The central facsimile number is (571) 273-8300. Recognizing the fact that reducing cycle time in the processing and examination of patent applications will effectively increase a patent's term, it is to your benefit to submit responses by facsimile transmission whenever permissible. Such submission will place the response directly in our examining group's hands and will eliminate Post Office processing and delivery time as well as the PTO's mail room processing and delivery time. For a complete list of correspondence not permitted by facsimile transmission, see MPEP 502.01. In general, most responses and/or amendments not requiring a fee, as well as those requiring a fee but charging such fee to a deposit account, can be submitted by facsimile transmission. Responses requiring a fee which applicant is paying by check should not be submitting by facsimile transmission separately from the check.
Responses submitted by facsimile transmission should include a Certificate of Transmission (MPEP 512). The following is an example of the format the certification might take:
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the Patent and Trademark Office (Fax No. (571) 273-8300) on ____________ (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _____________________________________
_____________________________________
(Signature)
If your response is submitted by facsimile transmission, you are hereby reminded that the original should be retained as evidence of authenticity (37 CFR 1.4 and MPEP 502.02). Please do not separately mail the original or another copy unless required by the Patent and Trademark Office. Submission of the original response or a follow-up copy of the response after your response has been transmitted by facsimile will only cause further unnecessary delays in the processing of your application; duplicate responses where fees are charged to a deposit account may result in those fees being charged twice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROGER L PANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 05:30-16:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROGER L PANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/ROGER L. PANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3655B
July 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights